tv U.S. Senate Senators After Revised GOP Tax Bill Released CSPAN December 2, 2017 7:10am-8:02am EST
the handwritten portion which zero up in the record and i have been advised there will have to be translators and interpreters to later decide with this as before it's part of the congressional record. i think i have made my point about where we stand in preparation of a tax reform for america. thank you. >> mr. president. >> talk about swamp, all the folks out there that voted in this election do not have been swamped in washington dc are, watching this before their eyes tonight with a bunch of amendments adopted by lobbyists last night. we got a list from them and we have got illegible amendments now at the desk that the even if we could read them we would nott be able to peer doesn't make any sense something else that doesn't make sense is that in our economy 90% of our-- bottom
90% of our folks are in the sane amount of the top 10%. top 10% earn 50% of the income and 90% bottom and the other 50% and you can see the directions these lines have gone over a number of years and that's the issue we confront with our economy. that's what we should all be working on in a bipartisan way to try to address and unfortunately instead of improving the circumstances for people in the bottom 90% the decision's been made because of an economic philosophy that has to do a trickle down economics to give the benefitse to the people doing pretty well-- not just pretty well, but better than they have done since 1928 and it was stated what a miracle that tax policy was in the early 1920s. may have two additional minutes? >> is there objection.
>> in addition, we can't afford to do this. right now we are collecting in revenue today before this tax cut goes into effect 18% of our gross domestic product in taxes and revenue and spending 21% of our gross domestic product. that leaves us with a deficit in because this place lacks the courage to deal with the issues we confront unlike our parents and grandparents we have hollowed out discretionary spending. we are spending 35% less than in 1980 as a percentage of our gdp and yesterday we had testimony in the armed services committee that we had a trillion additional dollars to modernize our defense and we know how dangerous this world is with what's happening on the korean peninsula in the middle east.
why is it okay for our parents and grandparents to invest in us, but we are unwilling to invest in the next generation of america?re we are saddling them with the dead that is risen from our inability to make proper decisions and we are doing it now and plain sight a budget projections that show the money just isn't here. i think we have a decision to make whether we want to live up to the example of our parents and grandparents andwe whether e are willing to make the cut with investment in the next generation that they were willing to make to us and i yield floor. just before we wrap up, i would like to make it clear because i have heard republicans talk constantlyco about how the procs is being conducted with regular order. i have never seenn in my time in public service when we're
talking about $10 trillion in the tax policy changes in the biggest tax bill in three decades something along the linesla of the flimflam we have been talking about with handwritten changes in the margins about something that conceivably will affect vast sums of taxpayer money and i yield back. >> who yields the time? >> the senator from florida. >> prthank you mr. president. has most of my colleagues know we have been working for about a year and a half on the tax reform process to address the issuehi. ungrateful that in this process we have increased the child tax credit to $2000 and it will help
a lot of people. either have been asked some people why is that enough and the answer is that the people we want-- most wanted to help won't be able to fully use it and here's why p. for them, people making 30 or 40 or $50000 for a construction worker or a teacher, firefighter, welder, bus driver the backbone of america workers, their main tax liability is their payroll tax and unless you allow the tax credit to apply fully, nudges to their income , they won't enjoy the full benefits.n't enjoy the full the result is kind of absurd if you do one without the other and the result is that if you make $500,000 a year and have enough kids you can use the whole credit, but if you don't you won't get nearly as much of the credit even though you pay the taxes. kind of doesn't make any sense.
we are trying to help people with the cost of raising children to allow them to keep more of their own moneyey and if the people who make less than needed the most and when you only do half of it with the 2000-dollar increase your get it half right. so it's good. people will be helped, but we could've helped so much more. the bill we have today that is before us and the force in a few minutes with a substitute is providede because the corporate tax rate from 35% to wi-fi percent and a reduction is something i strongly support because i think it makes america more competitive and in the process will help these same people we are trying to help and i know it sounds countercyclical, but it is because when these corporations save money on taxes many will use some of the money to create new jobs, hiring more people. they will reinvest and perhaps even flow towards workers in height wages over time i'm not
against a reduction in the corporate tax. i ran on the proposition reducing the corporate tax rate to 25%. 20% goes well beyond. we believe-- people don't know this back home so to explain it this bill allows us roughly $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years of spending over revenue. we think the growth in the economy will more than offset that, but for the purposes of the rules of the senate for us to offer an amendment that provides a increase at a rate we want to do at about 87 or $86.9 billion we have to find $86.9 billion to do it. initially we have inserted cutting the corporate tax rate from 75 to 20 as opposed from cutting it from 35 to 22 is still a massive cut the low the
international average of 23. still puts us in third place.om but that is met with a significant resistance and we'va always said we then open to an additional way of doing it and so today when the amendment is offered we will offer an amendment that instead of the 22% it will propose we produce the corporate tax 35, 20.94%, 28.94%. basically it's a debate 50% reduction of 14.6 production. the difference between what is in the billl and what we propose is less than one percentage point a reduction in the corporate tax rate. with less than that 1% difference we can make a huge difference in the lives of millions of americans making between 20 and $50000 because
that will generate about $87.000000000 and we can use 86.9 billionon to allow working families with children to keep more of their own money to pay for the cost of raising their children. i remind you who these people are. these are teachers, firefighters, welders, construction workers, truck drivers, working-class. we didn't even have to do that. from last night to today the leadership in those working on this and they have worked very hard found an additional about $260 billion to cut even more .axes i have no problem with that. i want america to be super competitive, but somehow through some political jujitsu or magical formula $260 billion appeared to provide further cuts and that's fine. i just wish some of that political magic had been employed on the half of the millions of americans making between 26 and $60000 a year because they need our help.n
some of the opposition is untrue. some is offensive. some of the opposition i've heard is the people who would benefit from this tax cut don't pay taxes. and they don't pay income tax or a lot of t income pack-- tax, bt they pay taxes. it today at 5:00 p.m. you let your job as a construction worker and try your paycheck, they took money out of your paycheck and when they take $200 out of your paycheck it doesn't matter if it's as fica or income tax withholding, it's $200. it's the same money and you have about the tax. anytime the government takes your money its attacks, but i've had people tell me that people in the administration they say they don't pay taxes or generate economic growth which is in my mind not true and also the wrong when you think about it. you see, our economy should be working for our people, not our
people for our economy and when you talk that way you have it wrong. i also disagree the don't generate growth because when you make $50000 and you spend every penny that you make, i know these people. i live in west miami, florida where the average income in a small little city three quarters of a square mile and i have lived there since 1985 in the average income is $38000 a year and if you make $38000 a year, he spend every penny especially if you are raising children. i don't care how much people tell you to put some money aside , you cannot because everything costs more. their unexpected costs. you brought-- bought brand-new shoes in september for school and even by november they either have a hole or they no longer fit. you buy a backpack in august for school and soon it has a hole in
pay for it. constantly costs come up that you don't anticipate. where they spend this money? into our economy so maybe they don't generate you met-- as much growth as a 4500 company, but they had to spend every penny have it so they do generate growth. i have heard terms it used like a blackhole, welfare. it's not welfare. it's their money. i had one newspaper editorials say it's anti- work. how could a tax credit that you can't get the monsieur working the anti- work? i will tell you what is anti- work, a package of benefits from the government that you get worth more than a tax credit that you are eligible for if you don't work. i want you to tell the worker at a head start facility-- think about this, you are teacher at a head start pre-k and you make too much money for your children to go to head start, but you
don't make enough t to be able o afford childcare for your own kids. that's happening all over the country and somehow they are $86.9 billion to help them just a little bit more. the second argument was heard is that we can't cut the corporate tax rate because it will hurt growth. you are telling me that if we have a corporate tax rate from 35% to 20.94% that will hurt growth? 20% is the most phenomenal thing we've ever done for growth, but if you add .94% of that it's a catastrophe? l we will lose thousands of jobs. come on. especially when you add that to the fact they will be able to immediately spend their investment a and that they wille able to repatriate money made abroad in the us at a lower tax rate.
when you add into it all the other things we have done, arguo all you want, but don't tell me .94% will somehow lead to the less economic growth because it's not true. we will have about later today. i don't know how many votes they will make us have to pass it and all the procedural things that happen here, but i can't zero you this is more than tax reform we have a big problem that perhaps this tax reform debate has revealed and that is that the only way forward for this country is an agenda that is pro- worker and pro growth and you cannot have one without the other. i can to you thattr in the couny today there are millions and millions of people that have been her by the economy. the new economy is greate and there's nothing we can do to turn it back. the future is here and you cannot back to the past. we should embrace the new economy. i it's created extraordinary wealth for people that are
innovators or have the right careers or the right jobs and i don't begrudge it. i'm glad that's happening, but when you have a new economy just like when the industrial revolution occurredre, there are people that will be hurt and we have to help them and then transitionra because if you dont help them you will break the social compact that holds our nation together and i'm not claiming today that the child tax credit will solve that problem by itself. i'm telling you that if we are not even willing to do another $86 billion of allowing people to keep warm their own money we aren't even willing to do something as small as this that orntre willing to do anythingng for working people in this country and that's a problem. that's an enormous challenge for our nation. these people have felt neglected and it disrespected for a long time and i want to be careful, but i want to be clear. of the political debate in america today is either all about helping the very poor and
i support the safety net. it should be there to all people who cannot help themselves to a people stand back up on their feet and try againat or the political debate is all about helping the business community and i support that because we need vibrant economic growth to create jobs opportunity, but what about everyone else. what about the people that make $50000 a year, so they make too much money f for chips, four prk headstart, for obamacare subsidies, too much for government benefits, but not nearly enough to afford the cost of living? what about them? with it for them? and yes there will be economic growth where we will see wage increases, but not for everyone, not in this new economy and with the haves and have-nots largely divided between those that have
the right skills right to degrees and those that do not. that has gone unaddressed for a long time. i'm telling you if we don't address it we lead our nation vulnerable to dangerous political extremes p, radical socialism on the left and ethnic nationalism on the rights. neither one of them o are true o the american principles that create greatest nation on earth. again, not here to tell you the child tax credit solve that problem. i'm here to tell you that if we cannot even do that, it's evidence of our unwillingness to do the things that need to be done. we have a major challenge in this nation and all we ask for and all i implore my colleagues to vote for, i know people on the other side of the isle this does not go far enough and i understand that. i know you want to get into a higher number and apply to more people and i promise you i did to. i wanted 2500 and trying to figure out which cannot be 80
sum game how we can make things better even if we'll make them perfect on the other side of the ilife for my colleagues to believe what i tell them that this is not a blackhole and it's rst welfare. these are the teachers, firefighters, your neighbors and friendss who struggle because everything costs so much more. why can't we help them keep a little bit more of their own money. is a 20.94% corporate tax rate going to hurt growth? especially if it will help us provide the little bit more assistance to the people of today who desperately need our help. i hope i can or in the support of many of my colleagues. it will make this bill perfect. it doesn't go far enough e, butt will make a better. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> senator from pennsylvania. >> i ask unanimous consent that there be 30 minutes equally
divided for debate with no amendments or emotions-- emotions in order. >> is an objection. without objection. senator morgan. >> we will have several colleagues take five minutes each and we will start with senator sanders. >> mr. president, as i think about what's going on here todah i think it is in many ways a historic day, a day that historians will look back on december 1, 2017 and they will conclude that today is a day of one of the great wrong acts of criminal activities if you like in the modern history of this country because the federal treasury is being looted tonight. as we speak there are lobbyists
all her capitol hill writing down in handwriting amendments to this bill to give hundreds of billions if not billions of tax breaks. millions of dollars of tax breaks to large corporations and as we speak there probably still meanwhile their senate led republican-led senate has been unable to reauthorize the chip program, the health insurance program for low income children. did not have enough time to do that. we have been unable to reauthorizehe community health center program providing 27 million people with health insurance. we don't have the time to do that. d , but tonight we are presumably going to pass legislation when at a time of massive incoming wealth and inequality 62% of the
tax benefits go to the top 1% and 10 years from now, 10 years from now millions and millions of middle-class americans will be paying more in taxes mr. president, i have not the slightest doubt, as i have said before, that after the republicans pass this huge tax giveaway to the wealthy of march corporations, they will be back on the floor of the senate and when they come back they will say my goodness the deficit is too high. we have got to cutio social security, medicare, medicaid, education and nutritional
programs. in other words in order to give tax breaks to billionaires and large profit corporations they will cut programs for the elderly, the children, the working families of this countrs this legislation will go down in history as one of the worst, most unfair pieces of legislation ever passed, but i say to my republican colleagueso as you saw on november 7, the american people are catching on. they are demanding a government which does not simply work for corporate lobbyists, but works for the middle class. they are demanding a tax system that says you will start past paying your fair share of taxes and no we're not going to cut
social security we are going to expand social security. when it rained a cut medicare. we are going to move to medicare for all health care system. the american people are catching on and while the republicans make it away with this act of moving tonight history is not on their side. they will comeil and it will coe sooner than laterar when we are going to have a government here that represents all of us, not just the code for others, not just the billionaire class and not just wealthy campaign contributors. i yield the floor.
>> senator from pennsylvania. >> i went to talk about one of the really pro growth features in this tax reform that will encourage investment in the united states, new business creation start of expansion and hiring that will be associated with that meaning new jobs, more demand for workers and higher wages. i'm referring to one of the things we do on the business side of this tax reform. the way i think about it, there's several big features that will drive economic growth on the business side of the tax code and want-- one is lowering from the 35% that makes us uncompetitive in the global economy to 20% that puts usty pretty close to that even
among our competitors. that is one and that's important. the second one i think that is more powerful is allowing s businesses-- allow business when they go out and buy new equipment and put that equipment to work in their factory or buy a new earth moving equipment or new machinery by allowing them to recognize that costs when it occurs that they can afford to purchase more of that equipment. why is that important? that's important because that is the source of productivity. workers are more productive when they have machinery equipment to work with peer to this is why capital drives productivity growth. if the investment that new equipment that creates demand for workers and makes the worker more productive.
i like to use and i think illustrates reasonably well is if you go to a construction site and you have two guys working on that site and one of them is operating a backhoe and the other is operating a shovel. they are both digging a hole in moving dirt. which one do you think it's prayed more? it's not a close call. the guy offered in the back zero is getting paid more on every jobsite in americaaw and not because there is a law that requires it, but because he's a more productive worker with a skill set using major equipment to allow him to be much more productive than a human being can with a simple hand tool, so that's an illustration of how it is that when a company is able to put that equipment to work the worker benefits. that worker operating this feeling when that one that benefits because someone has to make the backhoe. someone has to work at the factory that builds the backhoe that-- what we do when we allow
this expensing two occurred when we allow businesses for tax purposes to recognize the expense when it occurs rather than gradually over time we simply make it more affordable to put capital to work and by the kind of equipment to help them grow and help them help their workers become more productive and that's why this is a very constructive pro growth feature and are tax reform that will be very helpful. there is a third feature in our business tax reform that's also going to be great for america and that will be our change from the current global tax system that we apply on the subsidiary and affiliate of multinational to change away from a global system to territorial system for what is that mean? if the system we have today and america is unfortunately almost world in having
this counterproductive system and here's outworked, if a subsidiary of an american company goes overseas, say they go to england and they open a business there because they want to serve the english population until a product in england so they go to england, open their business and make a prophet, but they have to pay a tax to the english government. that's would any company operating there has to do. what america does and what we do in our tax code that almost no one else does is sayo after you have pay that tax toer the englh governments and if you would like toli dividend that money bk to your parent company to be invested in america we will charge of another layer of tax and make sure the combination of what you pay their and what you bring back home hits 35%, which is our current rate, completely uncompetitive. if you think about it the rest
of the world as are different system, a territorial system and the idea there is the subsidiary in england pays its tax to the english government and then whatever after-tax profit they choose to send home through their parent if it's a french company or german company or companies somewhere else there's the additional tax, so which country do you think has a competitive advantage doing business in england, anyone other than the us? this has been the very reason that you have seen this crazy inversions, these american companies being acquired by their companies and in many cases it's not about the economics or synergy. it's because there's a tax advantage to have a multi- national headquarter anywhere than the us. mr. president there's a lot of good jobs in a corporate
headquarters. there is. management and sales and finance and planning and all kinds of really good jobs and we are losing these symptomatically because we had this system that no one else in the world has, almost no one else that punishes companies when they bring that money back home. what are we going to do? we are going to change our system from one of the worst in the world to a think will be one of the best s and we will say company operating overseas has to pay lower tax, but we won't punish that company with another layer of tax when they bring the money back home to america and invest here. most estimates of-- i should point out, you only get hit with the tax penalty if you bring the money home and reinvest in americari. that's how crazy this is. and the common popular estimate by the economist who looked at this is that there somewhere
between two and three maybe even more $3 trillion of earnings by the subsidiary of american based multinational with a pay the tax overseas, but refused to bring the money back on because they don't want to have this huge tai think about this money overseas somewhere else and not being invested in america. i've had conversation with ceos that have told me they want to invest in the us, but the tax makes it prohibitively expensive to bring home and therefore they are looking for opportunities overseas where they won't have this. we had to end this and we willil end this in this bill and that's going to put an end to the tax incentive for these inversions, the movement overseas of corporate headquarters.am it will make america a great place to invest and to headquarter a multinational company and it's going to encourage the kind of growth.
it's one of the central pillars of our business tax reform that's very constructive and important. i see my colleague from south dakota with us and i will yield the floor for him. >> i will think the senator from pennsylvania from highlighting from some of the many reforms included in this legislation what he talked about is critically important. of america will be competitive in a global marketplace we have to change our tax code because ,t's completely outdated completely antiquated relative to any other companies we competeh w and so as the senator from pennsylvania pointed out the reforms we make in this bill allow american companies to compete and win against those other countries around the world , the china of the world, russia's of the world with a
huge advantage that over american companies today simply because we have a tax code that doesn't recognize a reflect what's happening in the global economy and that's why modernize in an our tax code is a critical part of our tax reform efforts. this is i would take her cherry to listening to my colleague from vermont i think it's a great day in the u.s. senate. we are getting close to the finish line on this tax bill and over the past 24 hours i think we made a great bill even better with more middle-class tax relief and more relief for small businesses and moved to the build closer to the houses built in key areas which i think will help it get to the president's desk, but i'm excited about what this tax bill will do for the american people. america has always been that opportunity, a place where you could start from nothing and become anything.
generations of people have come to this country to build a better life for themselves and an even better one for their children.n my grandparents were those people. they came from norway and started a small merchandising company after they learned the language. later became a hardware store and to this day in south dakota there is a store that goes by the family name. the family sought associated with it, but it's an example of the millions of people that came to america in search of opportunity. unfortunately in recent yearsr.t those vast horizons that so many people came to the country apart seemed to shrink. the american dream has grown dim and getting ahead is been replaced by getting by. we have watched tidily as jobs get shipped overseas as other come-- as emerging economies and
developed nations grow faster than the us. americans now freak really spend more time worrying about their future and looking forward to it.. we are turning that around starting today with this tax bill and i'm reminded of ronald .eagan presidential pad mr. president it may not be mourning yet, but the don is peeking over the horizonhe. tax bill before city will provide relief to hard-working americans and lower their tax and mean more money in their pocket, but this bill is about more than that. it's not just about helping americans today although it's most certainly going to do that. this bill is about helping americans for the long-term. it's about restoring the american dream d and giving americans access to wages, jobs opportunity to set them up for a
secure and more profitable futurecu and it's about sendinga message to the world that america is finally serious about competing for 21st century jobs and innovation. for years our tax laws have kept american businesses at a disadvantage in the global economy. other dacians have changed their tax code to strengthen their businesses in our tax code has kept american businesses struggling. that ends in now. this legislation makes a tremendous investment in american businesses and american workers.ca american businesses will no longer face the double taxation that's them at a disadvantage next to their foreign counterparts. will no longer face the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. it will no longer be playing catch-up with their foreign competitors.
instead american businesses will have money to invest in american workers and will expand their domestic operation and they will be able to compete with and beat their competitors around the globehe. what is the result of that? more growth here at home. more jobs. more opportunity and higher wages and in america that can lead the world innovation, job creation and economic growth. mr. president america may have been through a rough patch lately, but she is coming back stronger than ever. america led the world in the 20th century ended this tax bill makes it clear that she is going to do the same in the 21st century. mr. president, i hope our colleagues when it comes time to vote on this tonight will vote in favor of tax relief for middle income families, of a
stronger growing vibrant robust economy that is creating better paying jobs, raging wages for american workers and american families and a brighter and brighter and more prosperous future.t, for future generations of americans. mr. president, i yield the floor >> i would like to set the record straight on a couple of points in response to my colleagues who continually say this corporate tax cut is going to raise workers wages by $4000. now, i asked the head of thehe joint committee on taxation if that is the case and he essentially said no. he did not believe it was the case and referred us to tables that document it. perhaps even more egregious is tonight we heard our colleague from ohio say that a congressional budget office reports claims that workers will
get 70% of the benefit from a corporate tax cut. it was raised even higher. president, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a report from the congressional budget office making it clear on the cover where it says that analyses and conclusions expressed there should not be interpreted for those of the congressional budget office enter directly contradicts the comment t made by the senator fm ohio on wages and corporate tax cuts can i ask unanimous consent that it be included. >> without objection. >> thank you mr. president.d if i could have the attention of my colleague from pennsylvania i want to pose a question to him on a matter as we have indicated been digging through the amendments and as far as i can tell what we have is the earlier language which imposes new tax
on investment income of large university endowment. that's been the bill. now, there seems to be a new exception on page 289. the bill says the new tax does not apply to university otherwise subject to the task described in the first section which is 51182b and does not receive the funds. this is new. i'm trying to figure out why there is this special exemption, can't seem to find other people who are getting it or who benefit and i thought perhaps my colleague from pennsylvania iduld enlighten me on thisn. >> mr. president. >> senator from pennsylvania. >> i would happy to read the
senator from oregon. in this provides any college that chooses not to receive federal funds under title iv which is a give-- big category of funding for higher education. is the provision that authorizes federal financial student loan programs, for instance. my view is it if a college chooses to forgo federal money and the student that attend have to find their own way to get there it's diminishing the burden that the college would otherwise impose on the taxpayer so it's perfectly reasonable, to exempt such a college from the tax on endowment we apply generally. that's the answer to your question. >> but if my colleague would yield further, what's your analysis of how many colleges would benefit and the reason i ask is in my view there are a schools and i seem to
remember quite a few colleges in pennsylvania that are also deserving and they would not benefit from this guy would like my colleague assessment of how many colleges would benefit from this particular-- >> i think there are few probably hutus now to forgo all of this taxpayer money, but anyone in america wanted: zero -- any college that decided to choose to forgo the taxpayer money subsidizing their students and if they choose to do that then they wouldn't have to pay tax on their endowment. any college that made the choice. >> so, is this hillsdale college because that is what i have been led to believe and i would just like my colleagues analysis of
whether they would benefit. >> i believe that hillsdale college would qualify for this as would any other college that chooses to forgo title iv funding. >> i'm not aware-- >> there are other colleges that choose to forgo the funding. i'm not sure how many also has an endowment large enough at the moment that it would have an impact on them t and i have no idea how long it might take them to develop an endowment, but the point is i anyone in this categy would have the same treatment. >> mr. president with the senator answer a question about this provision?do do you know who the biggest donor was to the hillsdale college endowment? with that be the devos family? >> i have no idea and it doesn't matter. >> do you know who put the provision in here? >> i advocated the provision. >> what does it have to do with
taking title iv money as to whether .-dot your doubt it can be taxed. sounds like to me it's apples and oranges. what in the world it do those two have in relationship with each other? >> are you finished with your question? >> yes. >> i will answer again because i already answered in this. you may choose to disagree and that is fine, but my view is a college that chooses to say we don't want federal taxpayer dollars and therefore saves the taxpayer i don't how many millions altogether usually thousands per studentnt, i think it's reasonable that a college that chooses to not put that imposition on federal taxpayers ought to be able to be exempt from the tax to be available to any college that made that choice. several colleges in america make this choice o and any other that choose to would be able to do the same. >> the rationale is if you choose not to take federal money , then your endowments is no longer subject to any tax
even though the endowment money doesn't-- it comes from people that get a deduction for the tax for the buddy they give; correct? the endowment comes from donors. i thought the reason we were taxing the endowment is because the people giving the money got a tax deduction when they put it there. >> the point is the college that is qualifying for this is choosing not to impose the tax burden on the american taxpayer. they are allowing their students to not take the federal taxpayer benefits available to them. may choose not to. they save taxpayers money when they make that choice and i think it's reasonable to allow them not to also at the pay this tax on their endowment. people giving to the endowment still allowed to take the text adduction?
>> i think people who give to the endowments are treated the same as the people who give to any other endowment. >> so, it doesn't matter in terms of the people giving to the endowmentnt whether or not they get a text adduction, just whether or not the school takes money from the federal government? >> if the school chooses to save federal tax payers substantial amount of money by for going the title iv funds, then the school would not have to pay. >> my point is that the people giving to the endowment get the exact same tax benefit as people who give to any endowment in the country seem like and completely irrelevant.nt the fact is the school chooses to save the taxpayers money by for going money that would be available to the students and so it's reasonable to have this modest savings available to the school that makes that choice and saves the taxpayer money. >> it doesn't feel that way to us. it feels like it's a limited provision written for a special person.
>> universal provision available to any school that chooses to take them. >> question. >> scheuer. >> is this hillsdale college the same one super discrimination in the 1980s? >> i don't know the history of litigation against-- >> i know you said you introduced to this provision, so i assume you probably researched some. isn't the reason this college doesn't take federal funds is because they were sued for discrimination? >> mr. president, this is not my understanding. i understand my colleagues on the far left do not have a fond , but i do and i actually think it's a wonderful institution and i commend them for their choice as other colleges of the foregoing taxpayer money that they could take an burden they could impose on taxpayers, but they choose not to and i think any college
in a category whether it's hillsdale or any other college ought not to have to pay tax on the endowment. >> your colleagues on the left don't have a fond opinion of this college, but my point is, we don't have a fond opinion of discrimination and then giving a tax provision for just one college that happens to be funded by one of the wealthiest families in america because they happen to be a republican donor. why would that be a good provision in terms of the us-- united states of america to subsidize a cause that quit taking funds because they were sued for discrimination? >> you said is for one college and you know that's not true. there's a criteria available to any college in america and any college that takes it will get that benefit. >> quite a list of all the colleges that qualify because our understanding is only one is
written for one to qualified math right should not be done at the last minute and stuffed it into the tax-cutmr. >> this is wide open process. >> i asking in this consent three additional minutes to complete this with one question. >> objection? without objection i. >> thank you mr. president. i was concerned at the beginning because there are so many schools in oregon and pennsylvania and elsewhere who don't get this special treatment and obviously you have heard my colleagues expressed their concern and i think it transcends someone's politics, so my question now would be the perfect in amendment is not yet been filed. we might call he be willing take his provision out of the perfecting amendment and offer
it as a separate amendments so we can actually have an up or down votes and perhaps by that time we will know how many colleges if any other than this one benefits. >> you are watching the tv on c-span2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. book tv, television for serious readers. >> this weekend on book tv recounts the career of her grandfather, james, administrative director of the manhattan project and the president of harvard university. on sunday we are live with authors: no west end robert took the two professors who come from all this it ends of spectrum have lectured and taught together and they discuss their work and take viewers questions beginning in on sunday. also this weekend at david horwitz examines the left impact
on american university and colleges. rolling stone recounts the life and death of eric garner. and we visit kansas city missouri to tour the city's literary sites and talk to local-- local authors this weekend on c-span2 book tv. television for serious readers. for complete schedule, visit our website, book tv.org now, we kickoff the weekend weekend with former high school principal linda nathan who examines his the challenges facing high school students pursuing higher education. >> i'm here to introduce linda nathan who is also my mom. very lucky. so, linda has worked in vps for 38 years, founded three different schools and